Pres. Speech Sept 10, 2014

Post Reply New Topic

It'll be a token effort at best. At this point I don't see what can effectively be done without major commitment which aint gonna happen. He needs to come clean and just say that.


The first thing I notice is you predictably dragging old man Reagan into this in an attempt to appeal to the blindly partisan conservativism you still think I subscribe to. Reagan is passé; his value to me and other mainstream conservatives is the butthurt he causes the left, even from his grave.
The support of the American people lasts about as long as they are still mad about whatever we went to war over, or when football season starts. If it can't be wrapped up and done with nice and tidy before then, forget about it. I remember reading somewhere that the support of the American people was starting to wane near the end of WW2. That war was initially forecasted to last a lot longer than it did (1950 comes to mind). If America and her allies had not ripped into the European and Pacific theaters with all the finesse of a chainsaw massacre and made such progress in the time they did, it's at least possible that WW2 would have ended with the axis powers still intact. Sure, most of Europe and the Pacific would have been liberated or spared invasion but for how long?

Reagan couldn't win the Republican nomination today - he'd have been called a RINO. And I brought him up not to appeal to any partisanship on your part, but to point out that even he realized popular support is needed for any sort of sustained military conflict. And incidentally, the United States had had all the popular support in the War on Terror, until Bush had squandered it. And no, that's not partisan sniping, it's a statement of fact. Try to carry on a war effort without the country behind you.

And as I said in my last post, American support of any war is seasonal. You have to strike while the iron is still hot and strike hard enough to get things done before they get bored and change the channel.

"68 percent of Americans say they have 'very little' or 'just some' confidence that Obama?s goals of degrading and eliminating the threat posed by ISIS will be achieved," yet "62 percent of voters say they support Obama?s decision to take action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, while 22 percent oppose it," according to a recent poll.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-t ... ll-n202976

Yes, and the iron would have probably been hotter than it is now had Bush not wasted the will of the American people in a wasteful occupation.

/\
1. The occupation came as a result of the invasion. Occupations tend to be lengthy, even before W.
2. The invasion came as a result of *current intel which had been compromised in recent years by Clinton's spending cuts.
3. Had George Sr. gone all the way back in 1991 there would have still been a lengthy occupation with resultant issues for years to come.
4. It's a s**t sandwich over there no matter who's slicing it.

*current as in what was known up to the time of the decision to invade. What came later hardly counts since the proverbial train had already left the proverbial station.

Sure, the train's left the station, and there's not a lot we can do but accept reality and do our best. But the last thing we ought to be doing is getting tied down in the arm pit of the planet in a never ending conflict. That's the way great powers diminish. We need only recall how Spain had once been the preeminent world power, but had gotten involved in one endless war of religion after another against Protestant Europe, which depleted their power and wealth to the point where they became the third rate power they are today. While it might not seem appropriate to follow Obama's plan of having minimal involvement, followed by an exit, but what's the alternative? Getting tied down in an endless conflict that will leave the country a husk of what it once was?
And incidentally, Cheney and the neocons in W's administration had never intended that we leave Iraq; but rather that we stay there in a parasitic/colonial relationship with that country. If there was any reason for our overly extended occupation, and the enmity that the Iraqis came to hold for Americans, this was it.

Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?

Already discussed. Tossing Spain?s history in there doesn?t change anything since, as a people, we generally refuse to learn from history.

Why not just call it the Third Reich or The Sith since that?s what you?re thinking.

Gets back to what I was saying about occupations generally being long as a rule of thumb.


From earlier that I forgot about:
Thanks.
I was going to take bets on which one of your gun hating liberal buddies will be the first to take offense over it but that might be considered to be rather trollish or even baiting so I won?t.

Obama took office and magically it wasn't such a horrendous and evil war any more.

Either that or Ron Paul scared them away. Maybe a little bit of both.

Oh c'mon, everyone loves Dirty Harry!

The old mod crew wouldn't have let me get away with that one, I was specifically instructed not use any avatars with a gun pointing at the camera. Now, even then there were other people that had them, but those guys were always looking for an excuse to come down on me.

I do find it amusing how many DC politicians are blasting the president's speech despite the fact that it is just echoing many of their own statements of just a few weeks to months ago. Funny to see so many flip-flop Democrats suddenly supporting it and so many flip-flop Republicans blasting it. Just more of the "us vs them" BS.

So what is your better idea?

There are only three options: direct military occupation, indirect aid/airstrikes, and doing nothing at all.

Direct action ala W. Bush failed. According to indirect action ala Obama wont work. So are saying we should just do nothing?

Hey, at least it's not a German pirate emblem.